Many people are now complaining that the Government is preparing to place severe restrictions upon foreign-language newspapers in this country. The Government even threatens to close down many such newspapers; many have already been ordered to cease publication. This is undoubtedly a severe penalty. Is there a sound basis for such action by the Government? Probably not in all cases, but we must not forget that if the Government takes such measures the foreign-language press will be largely to blame. In demanding freedom of speech many foreign-language newspapers use that liberty to "criticize" the Government. At times, such criticism is honest, but often it is entirely without sound basis, and is carried to the point where it would win the gratitude of the Kaiser himself.

Those newspapers which demand freedom of the press, the right to publish anything 2that their saliva brings to their mouths, and the right to stir up the masses, have a mistaken notion of what freedom of the press means. The Government and the President have more than once declared that it is permissible to criticize the Government, that criticism of the Government is even desirable, but that such criticism must be supported with sound logic and must have a sound basis.

Everyone agrees that freedom of speech is a fundamental right of every American citizen. But that does not mean that this right may be used to harm the interests of this country. Every person, for example, has the right to eat whatever he has or whatever he wants to eat. But when a person gets sick, a doctor usually places him on a diet; the patient is forbidden to eat certain foods, although he may have a great desire for them. A doctor does not attach any importance to satisfying a sick person's appetite; he is mainly interested in overcoming the disease and in bringing the patient back to health. The doctor will not permit the patient to eat certain foods even if the patient demands them very energetically.

A state of war is a disease affecting the whole country--and it is one of the greatest and most dangerous diseases. Under such conditions, it often becomes necessary, willingly or unwillingly to deny the people certain things upon which there are no restrictions in time of peace. During a state of war no person can do anything and everything he pleases; he cannot demand everything that he was able to demand in time of peace. The interests of one person or of one political faction are very insignificant compared to the interests of the entire country. For that reason it often becomes necessary, in order to protect the interests of the country during a state of war, to prohibit certain acts that are permissible during times of peace.

It cannot be any other way. There are laws which restrict liberty, including freedom of speech; there are laws that prescribe penalties for the violation of such laws; and there are courts in which such cases are tried and decided. During a state of war, when there is not much time for trivialities, the people endow the government with greater powers, including the right to restrict those who demand and take too much liberty.In Russia, after the recent revolution, 4the people were granted unlimited freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, thus far the people have been unable to take proper and intelligent advantage of that freedom. We are all familiar with the present chaotic situation in Russia; hardly anyone would want a similar situation in the United States.

Before we demand complete liberty we must first learn how to use such liberty intelligently. It often happens, however, that those who make the greatest demands for complete liberty are those who are least able to use it intelligently and who are not willing to grant as much liberty to others as they demand for themselves.